Understanding How Changes in Pressure Vessel Codes May Impact Pressure Vessel

Performance

Patrick J. Sullivan
Highlander Engineering Services, PLLC
Argyle, NY

ABSTRACT

In the past several years there have been significant changes to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel (B&PV) Code and the use of international pressure vessel codes such as EN
13445. There is also been a trend to using higher strength materials for vessel construction. This has lead to thinner
and more flexible vessels. This paper discusses some of the potential unintended consequences of these vessels
related to non-pressure loads, the need to be aware of these loads, and necessity to properly specify the design
criteria to the fabricators in order to achieve the desired results.

INTRODUCTION

For many years, vessels in the pulp and paper industry were primarily fabricated from carbon steel or austenitic
stainless steels. In the 1990s, duplex stainless steels started to become the material of choice in many applications
given their potential for increased corrosion resistance and weight savings due to their higher strength compared
with conventional materials.

In this same time frame, ASME lowered their safety factors for internal pressure in Section VIII, Div. 1 of the
B&PV code. This was done in large part due to the potential loss of international market share from the various
European national codes and the model design code (EN 13445) being developed by the European Union (EU) for
compliance with the new Pressure Equipment Directive (PED). Typically, European codes have significantly lower
safety factors than either Section VIII Division 1 or Division 2.

The use of higher strength materials and lower safety factors resulted in thinner vessels. This is completely
satisfactory to contain the vessel static design pressure. However, there are additional loadings applied to a vessel
which generate additional primary stresses along with secondary and fatigue stresses. These additional loadings may
cause problems in the thinner vessels. Often these additional loads have been ignored because historically they
caused no problems in the vessel design because of the shell thickness.

Finally, vessels are often now designed to lower pressures than they were even 10-15 years ago. These lower
pressures also result in thinner vessel walls which in turn compound the non-membrane stress concerns.

No one of these changes may cause significant impacts but the cumulative effect needs to be evaluated when
designing new vessels as well as modifying newer vessels designed to these criteria.

TYPICAL PRESSURE VESSEL SAFETY FACTORS

The ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1 (1) had allowable design stresses that are the
lower of the tensile strength divided by a safety factor of 4 at operating temperature or the yield strength at operating
temperature divided by a safety factor of 1.5 (3). In the 1999 addendum to the code, the safety factor on tensile
strength was lowered to 3.5 (3).

ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2 (2) permissible stress intensities are the lower of a
safety factor of 3 applied to the tensile strength at operating temperature or 1.5 on yield strength at operating
temperature (3). This is based on the 2004 edition of the Code. The 2007 edition is supposed to have significant
revisions including the use of higher allowable stress values; however, the Code has not been published as of the
writing of this paper.

In contrast, the EN 13445 (4) has a safety factor of 2.4 on ultimate strength at room temperature or 1.5 on yield at
operating temperature; whichever is lower for non-austenitic stainless steels.

For austenitic stainless steels, all three codes have essentially the same permitted stress values.

HOOP AND BENDING STRESS CALCULATIONS

All pressure vessel codes calculate the pressure retaining wall thickness based upon some variation of the familiar
hoop stress formula shown below.
σm = p * r / t; where

σm = membrane hoop stress;

p = internal gage pressure in the vessel;
r = inside radius of vessel; &
t = thickness of element under consideration.

The formula can be re-written to determine the minimum required thickness (tmin):

tmin = p * r / S; where

S = the allowable material stress for the given condition.

S is often modified by a joint efficiency factor (E) based on the joint type and the amount of non-destructive
examination of the joint.

The wall thickness has a linear relationship with the other variables in the main portion of the vessel pressure. These
pressure stresses generate membrane stresses in the vessel.

Unlike membrane stresses, the relationship between bending stress and wall thickness is not linear.

The simplified equation for bending stress is:

σb = 6 * M / t2; where

σb = bending stress;
M = resultant moment (torsion); &
t = thickness of element under consideration.

Bending stresses can be the result of geometrical discontinuities, thermal gradients and transients, nozzle loads,
platform attachments, and pipe hanger attachment. Internal structures also may produce bending stresses in the shell
where they are attached.

It can be quickly seen that decreases in wall thickness will develop large bending stress increases. To complicate
matters, very often the forces which produce bending stresses are cyclic in nature.

Consider an example of a vessel constructed in the early 1990s compared to 2006 construction and an incidental
load which produces a bending moment in the shell.

Below are two tables, Table 1 and Table 2 which compare the effects of material and safety factor on shell
thickness. The tables then illustrate how the resulting wall thickness affect bending stresses. Table 1 compares the
effect of various design codes and material changes in vessel thickness and the resulting impact of an arbitrary
bending moment. Table 2 considers the changes in design code and materials as well as the impact of lower vessel
pressure, which is becoming more common in new systems.

TABLE 1 – Effect of Code and Material on Shell Thickness and Bending Stress

Parameter Early 1990s 2006

Vessel Diameter 7,62 m 7,62 m
Design Code ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 EN 13445
Shell Material SA516 Gr. 70 EN 1.4462 (2205 duplex)
Design Pressure 1.034 MPag 1.034 MPag
Design Temperature 175 C 175 C
Allowable Stress at Temperature 120.67 MPa (3) 223.33 MPa (4,5)
Yield at Temperature 227.9 MPa (3) 334 MPa (5)
Code Wall Thickness 33 mm 18 mm
Moment 113 N*m 113 N*m
Bending Stress 25 MPa 85 MPa
Bending Stress as a % of Yield 11 25

TABLE 2 – Effect of Code, Material, and Design Pressure on Shell Thickness and Bending Stress

Parameter Early 1990s 2006

Vessel Diameter 7.62 m 7.62 m
Design Code ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 EN 13445
Shell Material SA516 Gr. 70 EN 1.4462 (2205 duplex)
Design Pressure 1.034 MPag 0.6 MPag
Design Temperature 175 C 175 C
Allowable Stress at Temperature 120.67 MPa (3) 223.33 MPa (4,5)
Yield at Temperature 227.9 MPa (3) 334 MPa (5)
Code Wall Thickness 33 mm 11 mm
Moment 113 N*m 113 N*m
Bending Stress 25 MPa 236 MPa
Bending Stress as a % of Yield 11 71

The point of the above example is to illustrate how a once essentially trivial load now may have considerably more
impact on the structural integrity of the vessel. This is impact is even more critical if the loading is cyclic in nature.
Very often relatively small loads from attachments were simply ignored in the design because the information was
not provided to the vessel designer.

As significant new installations are constructed outside of North America, EN 13445 is rapidly becoming the
preferred code of construction. When modifications are made to vessels they often do not have the scrutiny of the
original construction. Modifications to pipe supports can significantly impact the nozzle loads and pipe hanger
support loads.

It is important that these modifications be properly reviewed and appropriate engineering efforts be made to ensure
that the structural integrity of the vessel is not compromised.

RECOMMENDATION FOR DESIGN INFORMATION PROVIDED TO VESSEL DESIGNER

It is not reasonable to expect a vessel to provide years of trouble free service, with respect to structural performance,
if the proper design conditions are not provided to the designer and if the vessel is not operated per the conditions
provided to the designer.
Vessel designers, by and large, are not familiar with the actual operating conditions of a particular vessel in a
facility. It is therefore necessary to provide them the actual expected conditions so the vessel can be properly
designed and detailed. Very often simply providing the design pressure and design temperature is inadequate and
additional information such as that listed below may be required for an adequate design to be performed.

1. Design pressure
2. Normal operating pressure
3. Number of full pressure cycles
4. Magnitude and quantity of partial pressure cycles
5. Steady-state thermal variations in the vessel or thermal profile in the vessel.
6. Magnitude and quantity of thermal cycles
7. Thermal transients and proper heat transfer data (film coefficients, insulation, etc)
8. Nozzle loadings
9. Pipe hanger support loadings
10. Platform pad loadings
11. Attached equipment loadings (internal and external)
12. Cyclic loading from piping and equipment. Load amplitude and frequency is necessary.

It is the responsibility of the owner or OEM to provide the proper load combinations and frequency of loadings to
the vessel detailed designer. Off the shelf pressure vessel design software, the use of spreadsheets, and more
advanced modeling techniques allow vessel designers to analyze a variety conditions that were often impractical in
the past.

To an extent, the newer vessel design codes have understand this point and therefore have allowed higher allowable
stresses because of the potential for the designer to analyze a variety of vessel conditions. The codes have inherent
assumptions, through the use of lower safety factors, that the proper loads will be supplied to the designer and used
in the analysis. In addition to more extensive analysis, the new codes also typically require more non-destructive
examination and tighter fabrication tolerances.

Supplying all of the conditions listed above is not necessary for every type of vessel. For example, an oxygen
reactor operates essentially steady state in terms of both pressure and temperature. However, there are possible
dynamic loads applied to the reactor through the discharge piping due to the three phase flow. Even the proper
design of pipe hangers will carry fluctuating loads to the vessel which generally require a fatigue analysis. There are
multiple instances where reactor discharge piping movement has created fatigue cracking in either the vessel or
affiliated tankage.

The other extreme is batch digesters which are highly cyclic in nature. There are thermal transients as well as
pressure cycles. Generally, areas of concern would be nozzles, cone to cylinder and the top head to shell joints.
Nozzle reinforcing pads should be avoided to the greatest extent possible and self-reinforced nozzles used instead.

Stiffening rings at cone to cylinder junction for internal pressure should also be avoided when possible. In fact they
are prohibited in some codes including EN 13445 and ASME Section VIII, Div. 2.

In the past several, inaccurate statements/assumptions were made which can affect the vessel loadings. Perhaps the
most common is that the pipe hangers shall be designed so that the nozzles are subjected to no external loadings.
This is a disservice to both the vessel designer and to the piping designer. It may be possible to achieve this for some
loading conditions but not all. However, the load does not simply go away but is instead transferred to the pipe
supports which have to be designed accordingly.

A common misconception is that Section VIII, Division 1 of the ASME pressure vessel code does not require a
fatigue analysis. This is untrue; Division 1 simply does not provide the rules for the determining the analysis but the
loadings are required to be analyzed per UG-22.

It is the responsibility of the vessel specifier to generate the design criteria and provide it to the vessel
designer/fabricator. Often detailed information, thermal transients for example, are unavailable; when these cases
occur the vessel specifier should describe the operation in sufficient detail and work with the designer to generate
fabrication tolerances and details which are appropriate for vessels which experience these types of loadings.

ALTERNATE CONSTRUCTION METHODS TO HELP REDUCE FATIGUE CONCERNS

Listed above were some concerns about certain details which, although commonly used, have experienced problems
in some cases and not in others. It is not always clear why two similar vessels operated in a similar manner have
different levels of mechanical damage. Some possible explanations are variations in material (physical properties,
defects), workmanship (welding), or construction (tolerances).

Below are two examples, one involves batch digester nozzles and the other considers batch digester support legs.
These examples are not intended to substitute the appropriate engineering effort to determine the proper design for a
particular situation.

There are a variety of options for nozzle self reinforcing which include use of thicker nozzle necks, using either an
entire band of thicker shell if many nozzles are to be installed or fabricate individual nozzles with a thickened shell
section around them that is butt welded into the adjoining shell. Reinforcing pads have an inherent notch which
serves as a point of stress concentration and can accelerate fatigue cracking; these other options can generally
provide a full penetration weld which reduces the stress concentration factor. It is important to state that this does
not eliminate the stress concentration but merely reduces the value.

Another area concern in batch digesters is the attachment of legs and ring girders. Generally, leg attachments have
presented more problems than ring girders. Legs are most often attached near the cone to cylinder junction which is
an area of structural discontinuity. The use of repads in this area is not recommended for similar reasons. The shell
and cone should be made thicker and the use of stiffening rings, attached with complete penetration welds and
contoured fillets, could also be used to help distribute the stresses in the shell. Dissimilar metal concerns, especially
if there are varying coefficients of thermal conductivity can be addressed by making the top portion of the leg the
same material as the shell. An alternate option is to build a short skirt section and attach legs to the section of the
skirt.

Vessels subjected to cyclic service should be build to tighter tolerances; especially with respect to vessel roundness
and seam peaking. Seam peaking can create local bending stresses that are not included in the basic design formulas.
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 does not address peaking while ASME Section VIII, Division 2 and EN 13445 Part 4 (6)
both do consider the affects of tolerances on vessel reliability.

IMPACT OF STRESS ON A VESSEL

The type and magnitude of the stress on a vessel can have a variety of impacts; some of which do not occur
immediately. In addition to pure stress failures there are stress assisted corrosion failures. As shown earlier in this
paper, the thinner vessel walls have higher stresses for a variety of incidental loads, many of which may have been
considered insignificant or minor in the past.

Generally, these incidental loads occur at some attachment point which is not well detailed and may have a notch
which causes a stress concentration. Coupled with the normal membrane stresses and potential residual stresses
from fabrication, the stress level may be high enough to cause stress assisted corrosion given the proper environment
in areas where such damage had not occurred in the past, even with the same material in the same environment.

When evaluating such damage the proper repair would include an evaluation of the loadings and attachment details
so that the chances of a reoccurrence are minimized.

As discussed earlier, particular areas would include nozzles, especially those subjected to cyclic loads, support
attachment locations, pipe hanger supports, changes in geometry, and any other structural discontinuity.
CONCLUSIONS

To account for the decrease in safety factors in pressure vessel codes it has become necessary to more accurately
define the loads and occurrence of loads on pressure retaining equipment. Loads which once may have had little if
any affect on a vessel may now have a significant affect due to the decrease vessel wall thickness. Also, when
modifying vessels constructed to these rules a more thorough engineering evaluation needs to be performed to see
what impacts may occur.

REFERENCES

1. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 1,
2004 ed, 2006 Addenda, ASME, NY, NY
2. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII, Division 2,
2004 ed, 2006 Addenda, ASME, NY, NY
3. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section II, Part D, 2004 ed,
2006 Addenda, ASME, NY, NY
4. European Standard EN 13445-3, Unfired Pressure Vessel – Part 3, Design (English Version), Issue 18,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
5. European Standard EN 10028-7, Flat Products Made of Steels for Pressure Purposes – Part 7: Stainless
Steels (English Version), European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
6. European Standard EN 13445-3, Unfired Pressure Vessel – Part 4, Fabrication (English Version), Issue 16,
European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
 Understanding How Changes in
Pressure Vessel Codes may impact
Pressure Vessel Performance

TAPPI 2007 Engineering, Pulping, and

Environmental Conference October 24, 2007,
Jacksonville, FL
By: Patrick J. Sullivan, P.E.
 Factors in Vessel Performance
• Operation
• Maintenance
• Environmental
• Materials
• Design
 Primary Factors in Design
• Loads -- pressure, external loads,
environmental loads
• Cyclic or static service
• Materials
• Temperature
 Changes in Pulping Industry
• Use of higher strength materials
• Some vessels have lower design
pressures
• More aggressive service in some cases

• Result: Thinner vessels

 Recent Changes in Design Codes
• Higher allowable stresses i.e. lower safety
factors
• More detailed design required
• Emphasized responsibility on vessel
specifier

• Result: Thinner vessels

 Code Safety Factors
Code Year Safety Factor
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 Pre- Min (Fu/4.0,
1999 Fy/1.5)
ASME Section VIII, Div. 2 Pre- Min (Fu/3.0,
2007 Fy/1.5)
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 2004 Min (Fu/3.5,
Fy/1.5)
ASME Section VIII, Div. 2 2007 Min (Fu/2.4,
Fy/1.5)
EN 13445 (non-austenitic) 2002 Min (Fu/2.4,
Fy/1.5)
 Code Allowable Stresses – 150C
Code/Material Year Allowable
Stress (MPa)
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 Pre-1999 ~121
/SA516 Gr. 70
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 2004 ~138
/SA516 Gr. 70
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 2004 ~171
/SA240-UNS S31803
ASME Section VIII, Div. 2 2007 ~247
SA240-UNS S31803
EN 13445 EN1.4462 2002 ~224
 Code Allowable Stresses – 150C
Code/Material Year Allowable
Stress (MPa)
ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 2004 ~115
/SA240-304L
ASME Section VIII, Div. 2 2007 ~115
/SA240-304L
EN 13445 EN1.4307 2002 ~126

ASME Section VIII, Div. 1 2006 ~177

/SA240-2101
EN 13445 EN1.4162 2006 ~223
 Basic Stress Categories

• Primary:
– Membrane (general & local): Average
stress across thickness
– Bending: Stress varies across thickness
• Secondary Membrane + Bending:
– Self equilibrating (local yielding)
• Peak: Significant in fatigue conditions
 Basic Stress Calculations
Hoop Stress: σm = p * r / t
p = pressure
r = inside radius
t = thickness
Bending Stress: σb = 6 * M / t2
M = resulting moment from load
 Example 1 – 7.62m Diameter Vessel
Design Code ASME (1990) EN 13445/Div. 2
Shell Material SA516 Gr. 70 EN 1.4462
Design Pressure 1.034 MPag 1.034 MPag
Design Temp. 175 C 175 C
Sall @ Temp. 120.67 MPa 223.33 MPa
Yield @ Temp. 227.9 MPa 334 MPa
Tmin 33 mm 18 mm
Moment 113 N*m 113 N*m
Bending Stress/ % 25 MPa / 11 85 MPa / 25
of Fy
Example 2 – 7.62m Diameter Vessel
Design Code ASME (1990) EN 13445/Div. 2
Shell Material SA516 Gr. 70 EN 1.4462
Design Pressure 1.034 MPag 0.6 MPag
Design Temp. 175 C 175 C
Sall @ Temp. 120.67 MPa 223.33 MPa
Yield @ Temp. 227.9 MPa 334 MPa
Tmin 33 mm 11 mm
Moment 113 N*m 113 N*m
Bending Stress/ % 25 MPa / 11 236 MPa / 71
of Fy
 Discussion of Examples
• Examples are simplistic in nature
• Non-membrane stress loads can be
significant
• Design loads/cycles require definition
• Modifications to vessels need scrutiny
 Required Design Information
• Design pressure
• Normal operating pressure
• Number of full pressure cycles
• Magnitude & quantity of partial pressure
cycles
• Steady-state thermal variations &
thermal profile in the vessel.
• Magnitude & quantity of thermal cycles
 Required Design Information
• Thermal transients & heat transfer data
• Nozzle loadings
• Platform & pipe hanger support loadings
• Attached loadings (internal & external)
• Cyclic loading from piping & equipment
 Required Design Information
• Not all data is required
– Know when to specify data
• Batch digester require more data than O2
reactors
• Consider fatigue resistant details
• Consider like metallurgy for thermal
concerns
 Required Design Information
• Fabricator cannot be expected to know
operating conditions
• Owner/specifier must supply conditions to
fabricator
• Owner should inform fabricator of
historical trouble areas
• Owner/fabricator need to work together
 Fatigue Concerns
• Pressure
– Full pressure cycles
– Significant pressure fluctuations
• Thermal
– Thermal cycles/variations/transients
– Varying materials
• Mechanical
– Fluctuating loads
– Flexible structures (displacements)
 Fatigue Concerns
• Geometry
– Stress concentrations
– Structural discontinuities
• Environmental loads
– Wind (flutter) (not usually a concern)
 Fatigue Analysis Required?
• ASME Section VIII, Div.2 Section 5.5.2.1
(2007 ed)
• ASME Section VIII, Div.2 Section AD-160
(2004 ed)
• ASME Section VIII, Div.1 Section UG-22
(2004 ed)
– Requires cyclic loading be considered
– No rules given
– Typically Div. 2 is used
• BS5500 & EN 13445 have their own rules
 Areas of Fatigue Concern
• Nozzles – Repads should be avoided
• Self reinforcing or insert plates instead
• Attachment welds – complete penetration
• Vessel support attachments
• Cone – cylinder junctions
• Dissimilar metals (thermal expansion)
 Option for Leg Supported Vessels
Skirt
Vessel section
shell

Legs to
bottom of
skirt
 Standard Nozzle Design
Fillet Weld
Flange

Nozzle neck

Repad

Vessel Shell
 Alternate Nozzle Design
C.P. WELD
Flange

Nozzle neck

Insert Plate

Vessel Shell
 Summary
• New pressure vessel codes have lower
safety factors – thinner vessels
• New materials often have higher strength
– thinner vessels
• Some new process have lower pressures
– thinner vessels
 Summary
• Given equal loads, thinner vessels have
higher stress
• Loads which were once trivial may be
significant
• Owner needs to specify design conditions
• Consideration for fatigue detailing
THANK YOU